sebthom/jstuff

Deprecation should be marked with both the @Deprecated annotation and @deprecated Javadoc tag. The annotation enables tools such as IDEs to warn about referencing deprecated elements, and the tag can be used to explain when it was deprecated, why, and how references should be refactored.

Further, Java 9 adds two additional arguments to the annotation:

• since allows you to describe when the deprecation took place
• forRemoval, indicates whether the deprecated element will be removed at some future date

If your compile level is Java 9 or higher, you should be using one or both of these arguments.

Noncompliant Code Example

class MyClass {

  @Deprecated
  public void foo1() {
  }

  /**
    * @deprecated
    */
  public void foo2() {    // Noncompliant
  }

}

Compliant Solution

class MyClass {

  /**
    * @deprecated (when, why, refactoring advice...)
    */
  @Deprecated
  public void foo1() {
  }

  /**
    * Java >= 9
    * @deprecated (when, why, refactoring advice...)
    */
  @Deprecated(since="5.1")
  public void foo2() {
  }

  /**
    * Java >= 9
    * @deprecated (when, why, refactoring advice...)
    */
  @Deprecated(since="4.2", forRemoval=true)
  public void foo3() {
  }

}

Exceptions

The members and methods of a deprecated class or interface are ignored by this rule. The classes and interfaces themselves are still subject to it.

/**
 * @deprecated (when, why, etc...)
 */
@Deprecated
class Qix  {

  public void foo() {} // Compliant; class is deprecated

}

/**
 * @deprecated (when, why, etc...)
 */
@Deprecated
interface Plop {

  void bar();

}

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Utility classes, which are collections of static members, are not meant to be instantiated. Even abstract utility classes, which can be extended, should not have public constructors.

Java adds an implicit public constructor to every class which does not define at least one explicitly. Hence, at least one non-public constructor should be defined.

Noncompliant Code Example

class StringUtils { // Noncompliant

  public static String concatenate(String s1, String s2) {
    return s1 + s2;
  }

}

Compliant Solution

class StringUtils { // Compliant

  private StringUtils() {
    throw new IllegalStateException("Utility class");
  }

  public static String concatenate(String s1, String s2) {
    return s1 + s2;
  }

}

Exceptions

When class contains public static void main(String[] args) method it is not considered as utility class and will be ignored by this rule.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Using such generic exceptions as Error, RuntimeException, Throwable, and Exception prevents calling methods from handling true, system-generated exceptions differently than application-generated errors.

Noncompliant Code Example

public void foo(String bar) throws Throwable {  // Noncompliant
  throw new RuntimeException("My Message");     // Noncompliant
}

Compliant Solution

public void foo(String bar) {
  throw new MyOwnRuntimeException("My Message");
}

Exceptions

Generic exceptions in the signatures of overriding methods are ignored, because overriding method has to follow signature of the throw declaration in the superclass. The issue will be raised on superclass declaration of the method (or won't be raised at all if superclass is not part of the analysis).

@Override
public void myMethod() throws Exception {...}

Generic exceptions are also ignored in the signatures of methods that make calls to methods that throw generic exceptions.

public void myOtherMethod throws Exception {
  doTheThing();  // this method throws Exception
}

See

• MITRE, CWE-397 - Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception
• CERT, ERR07-J. - Do not throw RuntimeException, Exception, or Throwable

ThreadLocal variables are supposed to be garbage collected once the holding thread is no longer alive. Memory leaks can occur when holding threads are re-used which is the case on application servers using pool of threads.

To avoid such problems, it is recommended to always clean up ThreadLocal variables using the remove() method to remove the current thread’s value for the ThreadLocal variable.

In addition, calling set(null) to remove the value might keep the reference to this pointer in the map, which can cause memory leak in some scenarios. Using remove is safer to avoid this issue.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class ThreadLocalUserSession implements UserSession {

  private static final ThreadLocal<UserSession> DELEGATE = new ThreadLocal<>();

  public UserSession get() {
    UserSession session = DELEGATE.get();
    if (session != null) {
      return session;
    }
    throw new UnauthorizedException("User is not authenticated");
  }

  public void set(UserSession session) {
    DELEGATE.set(session);
  }

   public void incorrectCleanup() {
     DELEGATE.set(null); // Noncompliant
   }

  // some other methods without a call to DELEGATE.remove()
}

Compliant Solution

public class ThreadLocalUserSession implements UserSession {

  private static final ThreadLocal<UserSession> DELEGATE = new ThreadLocal<>();

  public UserSession get() {
    UserSession session = DELEGATE.get();
    if (session != null) {
      return session;
    }
    throw new UnauthorizedException("User is not authenticated");
  }

  public void set(UserSession session) {
    DELEGATE.set(session);
  }

  public void unload() {
    DELEGATE.remove(); // Compliant
  }

  // ...
}

Exceptions

Rule will not detect non-private ThreadLocal variables, because remove() can be called from another class.

See

• Understanding Memory Leaks in Java

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how hard the control flow of a method is to understand. Methods with high Cognitive Complexity will be difficult to maintain.

See

• Cognitive Complexity

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

It is highly recommended not to use wildcard types as return types. Because the type inference rules are fairly complex it is unlikely the user of that API will know how to use it correctly.

Let's take the example of method returning a "List<? extends Animal>". Is it possible on this list to add a Dog, a Cat, ... we simply don't know. And neither does the compiler, which is why it will not allow such a direct use. The use of wildcard types should be limited to method parameters.

This rule raises an issue when a method returns a wildcard type.

Noncompliant Code Example

List<? extends Animal> getAnimals(){...}

Compliant Solution

List<Animal> getAnimals(){...}

or

List<Dog> getAnimals(){...}

Overriding or shadowing a variable declared in an outer scope can strongly impact the readability, and therefore the maintainability, of a piece of code. Further, it could lead maintainers to introduce bugs because they think they're using one variable but are really using another.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public int myField;

  public void doSomething() {
    int myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL01-C. - Do not reuse variable names in subscopes
• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

This rule raises an issue when reflection is used to change the visibility of a class, method or field, and when it is used to directly update a field value. Altering or bypassing the accessibility of classes, methods, or fields violates the encapsulation principle and could lead to run-time errors.

Noncompliant Code Example

public void makeItPublic(String methodName) throws NoSuchMethodException {

  this.getClass().getMethod(methodName).setAccessible(true); // Noncompliant
}

public void setItAnyway(String fieldName, int value) {
  this.getClass().getDeclaredField(fieldName).setInt(this, value); // Noncompliant; bypasses controls in setter
}

See

• CERT, SEC05-J. - Do not use reflection to increase accessibility of classes, methods, or fields

Overriding or shadowing a variable declared in an outer scope can strongly impact the readability, and therefore the maintainability, of a piece of code. Further, it could lead maintainers to introduce bugs because they think they're using one variable but are really using another.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public int myField;

  public void doSomething() {
    int myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL01-C. - Do not reuse variable names in subscopes
• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

Overriding or shadowing a variable declared in an outer scope can strongly impact the readability, and therefore the maintainability, of a piece of code. Further, it could lead maintainers to introduce bugs because they think they're using one variable but are really using another.

Noncompliant Code Example

class Foo {
  public int myField;

  public void doSomething() {
    int myField = 0;
    ...
  }
}

See

• CERT, DCL01-C. - Do not reuse variable names in subscopes
• CERT, DCL51-J. - Do not shadow or obscure identifiers in subscopes

When @Overrides of synchronized methods are not themselves synchronized, the result can be improper synchronization as callers rely on the thread-safety promised by the parent class.

Noncompliant Code Example

public class Parent {

  synchronized void foo() {
    //...
  }
}

public class Child extends Parent {

 @Override
  public void foo () {  // Noncompliant
    // ...
    super.foo();
  }
}

Compliant Solution

public class Parent {

  synchronized void foo() {
    //...
  }
}

public class Child extends Parent {

  @Override
  synchronized void foo () {
    // ...
    super.foo();
  }
}

See

• CERT, TSM00-J - Do not override thread-safe methods with methods that are not thread-safe

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should, and that's the case with nested ternary operations. Nesting ternary operators results in the kind of code that may seem clear as day when you write it, but six months later will leave maintainers (or worse - future you) scratching their heads and cursing.

Instead, err on the side of clarity, and use another line to express the nested operation as a separate statement.

Noncompliant Code Example

public String getReadableStatus(Job j) {
  return j.isRunning() ? "Running" : j.hasErrors() ? "Failed" : "Succeeded";  // Noncompliant
}

Compliant Solution

public String getReadableStatus(Job j) {
  if (j.isRunning()) {
    return "Running";
  }
  return j.hasErrors() ? "Failed" : "Succeeded";
}

Calling System.gc() or Runtime.getRuntime().gc() is a bad idea for a simple reason: there is no way to know exactly what will be done under the hood by the JVM because the behavior will depend on its vendor, version and options:

• Will the whole application be frozen during the call?
• Is the -XX:DisableExplicitGC option activated?
• Will the JVM simply ignore the call?
• ...

Like for System.gc(), there is no reason to manually call runFinalization() to force the call of finalization methods of any objects pending finalization.

An application relying on these unpredictable methods is also unpredictable and therefore broken. The task of running the garbage collector and calling finalize() methods should be left exclusively to the JVM.

Returning null instead of an actual array or collection forces callers of the method to explicitly test for nullity, making them more complex and less readable.

Moreover, in many cases, null is used as a synonym for empty.

Noncompliant Code Example

public static List<Result> getResults() {
  return null;                             // Noncompliant
}

public static Result[] getResults() {
  return null;                             // Noncompliant
}

public static void main(String[] args) {
  Result[] results = getResults();

  if (results != null) {                   // Nullity test required to prevent NPE
    for (Result result: results) {
      /* ... */
    }
  }
}

Compliant Solution

public static List<Result> getResults() {
  return Collections.emptyList();          // Compliant
}

public static Result[] getResults() {
  return new Result[0];
}

public static void main(String[] args) {
  for (Result result: getResults()) {
    /* ... */
  }
}

See

• CERT, MSC19-C. - For functions that return an array, prefer returning an empty array over a null value
• CERT, MET55-J. - Return an empty array or collection instead of a null value for methods that return an array or collection

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.

Duplicated string literals make the process of refactoring error-prone, since you must be sure to update all occurrences.

On the other hand, constants can be referenced from many places, but only need to be updated in a single place.

Noncompliant Code Example

With the default threshold of 3:

public void run() {
  prepare("action1");                              // Noncompliant - "action1" is duplicated 3 times
  execute("action1");
  release("action1");
}

@SuppressWarning("all")                            // Compliant - annotations are excluded
private void method1() { /* ... */ }
@SuppressWarning("all")
private void method2() { /* ... */ }

public String method3(String a) {
  System.out.println("'" + a + "'");               // Compliant - literal "'" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
  return "";                                       // Compliant - literal "" has less than 5 characters and is excluded
}

Compliant Solution

private static final String ACTION_1 = "action1";  // Compliant

public void run() {
  prepare(ACTION_1);                               // Compliant
  execute(ACTION_1);
  release(ACTION_1);
}

Exceptions

To prevent generating some false-positives, literals having less than 5 characters are excluded.